TL;DR First:
You might wind up with a faster machine if you put an extra $400 into 64GB RAM instead of into CPU/GPU.
Just-after-restart benchmarks are useful. But what really matters for you is your mid-process actual usage.
People seem to want to argue whether or not less ram is usable (of course it is, MacOS has FANTASTIC memory management mitigation techniques), but this post is about knowing what you ACTUALLY gain from RAM/CPU/GPU upgrade money.
People also are proving one of the key points of this post by arguing against what MacOS is reporting as the amount of memory used, using instead the confusingly low values in Activity Monitor.
MacOS's memory management is magical, but it DOES affect your performance.
Apple does all kind of memory management wizardy to maximize the use of your physical memory. This is a sort of 'soft ceiling' where the swapping and caching and compressing happens in order to avoid the 'hard ceiling' of memory thrash.
As amazing as these techniques are (they greatly extend the headroom before hitting the 'hard ceiling'), they do slow your machine down more than ANYTHING else (CPU/GPU/etc).
How big a hit to performance? Will you get a faster machine by throwing $400 into more RAM or more CPU/GPU?
The performance hit from this excellent memory management is going to affect a whole lot more people a whole lot more often than hitting their CPU or GPU limits. Especially if their MBP is their every-day-use machine that gets multi-tasked up the wazoo.
I got away with 16GB for 6+ years, because this memory management magic is so damned good. I almost never hit max my CPU or GPU, but my performance is just about always affected a few percent (much more when my memory pressure is in the yellow or red).
Importantly, you may be requesting more memory than you actually think you are. You may be hitting this memory management performance 'soft ceiling' when you don't think you are.
If you're speccing out upgrades, it's important to know where your performance leechs actually are. You can throw $400 into CPU/GPU, but wind up with a slower machine than if you put that into memory.
This depends a TON on personal use. But you gotta make sure you actually know your personal use!
Activity Monitor can be misleading...
If you only look at Activity Monitor, you might not realize that your mac is actually well into the shell game of memory management, and your performance has taken a big hit.
Right now Activity Monitor shows all-green memory pressure and says I'm using 12.3GB of RAM, with only 1.0GB compressed. No problem right?
However, you'll notice that my system is actually asking for over 22gb or ram, so it's swapping and caching 10gb of memory (all compressed, FYI).
You can confirm this by adding up all the values of uncompressed and compressed memory for the processes in the memory tab of Activity Monitor (it's easily copy-pastable into excel/numbers).
It's not like Activity Monitor is outright lying, but let's face it, Apple wants the less tech-savvy people who shelled out thousands to see a nice green memory pressure graph with memory used less than the physical memory.
Edit: Here's a cap of my excel sheet. The two "Total (GB)" columns are sums of the "Memory" and "Compressed Memory" columns below.
Edit again: Because people are somehow refusing to believe that the 22gb of memory used for such a light workload, here's a screencap of the results of a top command (top -l 1 -S -n 0) taken at about the same time which sums up the memory state.
Notice that:
22gb for what's actually a super light load (in 2019, it'd be even higher years down the road).
Currently my mac has been running for a few weeks, but I just got back from vacation and closed up just about everything before I went. Right now this is as close to a 'skeleton crew' state of apps I have open:
Finder (with 6 windows open)
Mail
Calendar
Messages
iTunes
Safari (with only 13 tabs, which is WAAAAAY less than normal for me)
Notes
BBEdit (with very few, very small docs open)
Terminal (with only one window just opened)
Activity Monitor
Excel (just opened with only one very minimal sheet for playing with these numbers)
Alfred
iStat Monitors
That's actually a SUPER LIGHT load for me. I'm usually not very spartan with my safari and finder tabs and I've often got a bunch of apps open. And I switch between them so much I bet my Mac could diagnose me with ADHD.
I always max the RAM.
I'm a BIG advocate of ALWAYS maxing the ram in a non-upgradeable mac, so I've ordered 64GB in my new 16-inch. It's the single biggest thing you can do to increase the longevity of your mac. My late-2013 15-inch has 16gb and after six years, it's just starting to chug.
But if I trusted Activity Monitor, I'd think 16gb is still overkill.
If you plan to upgrade in a few years, or if you're really spartan with your use, you can probably get away with 32gb. But if you plan to hang on for a while, maxxing to 64gb can be the biggest performance and longevity boost you can make. (Not to mention, it significantly increases the resale value a few years down the road when 32gb will be the new minimum.)
You might wind up with a faster machine if you put an extra $400 into 64GB RAM instead of into CPU/GPU.
Just-after-restart benchmarks are useful. But what really matters for you is your mid-process actual usage.
People seem to want to argue whether or not less ram is usable (of course it is, MacOS has FANTASTIC memory management mitigation techniques), but this post is about knowing what you ACTUALLY gain from RAM/CPU/GPU upgrade money.
People also are proving one of the key points of this post by arguing against what MacOS is reporting as the amount of memory used, using instead the confusingly low values in Activity Monitor.
MacOS's memory management is magical, but it DOES affect your performance.
Apple does all kind of memory management wizardy to maximize the use of your physical memory. This is a sort of 'soft ceiling' where the swapping and caching and compressing happens in order to avoid the 'hard ceiling' of memory thrash.
As amazing as these techniques are (they greatly extend the headroom before hitting the 'hard ceiling'), they do slow your machine down more than ANYTHING else (CPU/GPU/etc).
How big a hit to performance? Will you get a faster machine by throwing $400 into more RAM or more CPU/GPU?
The performance hit from this excellent memory management is going to affect a whole lot more people a whole lot more often than hitting their CPU or GPU limits. Especially if their MBP is their every-day-use machine that gets multi-tasked up the wazoo.
I got away with 16GB for 6+ years, because this memory management magic is so damned good. I almost never hit max my CPU or GPU, but my performance is just about always affected a few percent (much more when my memory pressure is in the yellow or red).
Importantly, you may be requesting more memory than you actually think you are. You may be hitting this memory management performance 'soft ceiling' when you don't think you are.
If you're speccing out upgrades, it's important to know where your performance leechs actually are. You can throw $400 into CPU/GPU, but wind up with a slower machine than if you put that into memory.
This depends a TON on personal use. But you gotta make sure you actually know your personal use!
Activity Monitor can be misleading...
If you only look at Activity Monitor, you might not realize that your mac is actually well into the shell game of memory management, and your performance has taken a big hit.
Right now Activity Monitor shows all-green memory pressure and says I'm using 12.3GB of RAM, with only 1.0GB compressed. No problem right?
However, you'll notice that my system is actually asking for over 22gb or ram, so it's swapping and caching 10gb of memory (all compressed, FYI).
You can confirm this by adding up all the values of uncompressed and compressed memory for the processes in the memory tab of Activity Monitor (it's easily copy-pastable into excel/numbers).
It's not like Activity Monitor is outright lying, but let's face it, Apple wants the less tech-savvy people who shelled out thousands to see a nice green memory pressure graph with memory used less than the physical memory.
Edit: Here's a cap of my excel sheet. The two "Total (GB)" columns are sums of the "Memory" and "Compressed Memory" columns below.
Edit again: Because people are somehow refusing to believe that the 22gb of memory used for such a light workload, here's a screencap of the results of a top command (top -l 1 -S -n 0) taken at about the same time which sums up the memory state.
Notice that:
- All 16gb of physical memory is used (all but 141mb)
- Another ~6.2gb of memory has been swapped to disk
22gb for what's actually a super light load (in 2019, it'd be even higher years down the road).
Currently my mac has been running for a few weeks, but I just got back from vacation and closed up just about everything before I went. Right now this is as close to a 'skeleton crew' state of apps I have open:
Finder (with 6 windows open)
Calendar
Messages
iTunes
Safari (with only 13 tabs, which is WAAAAAY less than normal for me)
Notes
BBEdit (with very few, very small docs open)
Terminal (with only one window just opened)
Activity Monitor
Excel (just opened with only one very minimal sheet for playing with these numbers)
Alfred
iStat Monitors
That's actually a SUPER LIGHT load for me. I'm usually not very spartan with my safari and finder tabs and I've often got a bunch of apps open. And I switch between them so much I bet my Mac could diagnose me with ADHD.
I always max the RAM.
I'm a BIG advocate of ALWAYS maxing the ram in a non-upgradeable mac, so I've ordered 64GB in my new 16-inch. It's the single biggest thing you can do to increase the longevity of your mac. My late-2013 15-inch has 16gb and after six years, it's just starting to chug.
But if I trusted Activity Monitor, I'd think 16gb is still overkill.
If you plan to upgrade in a few years, or if you're really spartan with your use, you can probably get away with 32gb. But if you plan to hang on for a while, maxxing to 64gb can be the biggest performance and longevity boost you can make. (Not to mention, it significantly increases the resale value a few years down the road when 32gb will be the new minimum.)
Last edited: